Talk:Chris Crocker/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

Good article

I just nominated this for good article status. I feel it's thoroughly researched, well organized and reasonably well written. One possible knock against it is its apparent instability, but I feel most of that is the result of vandals and not edit-warring, per se. I'd love to know what the rest of you think.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 18:29, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

I was just thinking the stability issue and lack of photos (which makes sense) take away from the GA status. I think the instability has more to do with recentism than vandalism. Benjiboi 20:13, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
I don't think a Good Article necessarily has to have more than 2 pictures. I think the 2 pictures already included are perfect.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 20:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
A Good Article doesn't have to have any pictures, unless free images are easily/obviously available. From skimming just the lead, even a cursory copy edit wouldn't have hurt this article though. Cheers, CP 23:09, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. It is stable.
    No edit wars etc.:
  6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
    a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
  7. Overall:
    Pass/Fail: -- ALLSTAR ECHO 22:32, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
Fine. How much time do we need to give before archiving this thread then? Benjiboi 00:54, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I dunno, but more than a few hours. I usually go with a few months, unless we're talking about a very active talk page that's becoming very long, in which case I tend archive the oldest discussions first. The only time I would archive anything out chronological order is if there was a particularly long, nonconstructive thread that was taking a up a lot of space and serving no useful purpose. But everyone has their own archiving preferences.--The Fat Man Who Never Came Back 00:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering about this being archived so soon but I always have faith in Benjiboi's judgement so either/or is fine with me. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 01:00, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
I archived it as something that had come up and was dealt with but it can stay here certainly for a few days. This is a very active article and talk page with both Crocker supporters and detractors popping in with recent stuff (lots of it useful!) My concern is to keep this page short enough so those with slower connections are not impeded from accessing the material. Regardless it can sit for a bit unless space becomes a major concern. Benjiboi 00:41, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Crocker image still (crying or ?) from Leave brit alone vid

Would someone like to hunt down a replacement image that can be loaded into the commons? The current front newspage image has been tagged for speedy deletion so it would be nice to have a still photo from his Leave Britney Alone video showing him crying or otherwise upset as many have come to know him. Benjiboi 00:53, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I've sorted out the crap about it being a deleteable image. No free image can represent his appeararance on a major news site other than... A PICTURE OF THE ARTICLE ON A MAJOR NEWS SITE. Damn copyright naz... "experts". Fosnez 01:27, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no - the image violates the fair use guidelines for website screenshots. These are appropriate in articles about the website in question, but this article is about an individual. --Strothra 01:34, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I've looked, but I can't find a policy or guideline that specifically discourages placing screenshots of websites in articles about individuals. Ichormosquito 02:23, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
I think it will be deleted, unfortunately. Ichormosquito 09:26, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I ripped one from his "Leave Britney Alone" vid

It qualifies for fair use, no question; but we need to be sure this is the state of Chris's agony we prefer. There are many other facial expressions to choose from... Ichormosquito 09:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I added clarity to the caption, I think it's fine to use and is quite close to what the world knows of the video. Benjiboi 21:02, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

NEEDS A SERIOUS UPDATE

this deal / project with 44 blue has been cancelled - he no longer works with them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CZ_63SZUNyg Apelike 19:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

So make the changes with source/reference. What's the problem? -- ALLSTAR ECHO 19:47, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

he also kissed his brother!

This refers to him kissing his boyfriend at the time who was posing as his brother. Benjiboi 03:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Speaking of updates, the video has had over 11,000,000 views as of today. 216.182.30.59 23:00, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Updated. Benjiboi 03:11, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View?

I removed the comment: "Psychologist Kevin Leman noted that voyeuristic fascination with celebrity "says that we live in a morally corrupt society",[1] and that Crocker is a good example of the narcissistic look-at-me generation of attention-seeking mongers.[1]" because it appears to violate neutral point of view rules. This article was 1) written by a non-notable psychologist, in 2) the opinion section of 3) a small-city newspaper. The article wasn't even about Crocker, but happened to mention him as an example of what one single individual feels is the moral corruption of our society. To use such an article as a source to bash subtley bash Crocker certianly violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view policies. Aegiswings 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

My edits were reverted so I'm updating this page to add that this article was even written by a psychologist. It was written by a sport's writer who turned to Leman, a psychologist for his opinions. The content in question wasn't even said by Leman; it was writted by Steve Rivera, the author of the article! Leman never used Crocker as an example, and so attributing the comment to Leman this is just plain wrong. I'm removing it again. Aegiswings 04:45, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Although some of your points are valid and the text in question has been modified please consider that the article referenced was well-written and the content was being used to add some credible and needed criticism of this article's subject. It helps place the actions of Crocker in a larger perspective for the average reader. It's one thing for various people to ridicule Crocker but for our purposes it's more helpful to offer insight as to why he is so popular or so reviled or if his actions speak to a larger social movement. Although the comments seem a bit harsh I feel they were accurate and portrayed Crocker as many view him and his recent famous video. Expect to see more, and possibly more scathing criticism as more is written about the subject. As this point I think he will have the most talked about video on YouTube within a month which will only heighten his popularity and detractor's disdain. Benjiboi 03:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Britney Spears' Reaction

I don't know if this was already brought up, but shouldn't there be a mention in the article that Britney Spears finds Chris Crocker "creepy" and his video "insulting"? There was a story about this about 2 weeks ago. ----Ðysepsion † Speak your mind 18:58, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I think it was brought up somewhere but quickly dismissed as we have no verification that Spears herself stated this, it was supposedly a friend of hers. If her feelings are that strong I'm sure they will soon surface. Also, we need to hedge against being a part of a potential publicity plan - celebrities will often work the media with alleged issues to get another round of attention and both Spears and Crocker have either been known to do this or at least suspected of same. Benjiboi 21:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

LGBT box and sexual orientation

Should this box really be at the bottom? No other lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgendered people have it on their wiki page. I don't think his sexuality is really a big issue at all, which brings me to question why the page starts with "Chris Crocker is an openly gay.... ". His sexuality is a detail which attributes to his being, but he is known more for his "camp persona" which is really irrelevant to his orientation as there are many camp straight people in the entertainment world today - I believe this should be reviewed, opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.197.8 (talk) 19:51, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

The LGBT box/template are on many other bios but agree the issue should be reviewed and it has. His sexuality is considered a key to his work and success. You may want to view some of his work, most (all?) which speaks to issues of him being a young flaming (and seething) gay man in a homophobic Southern small town. Some have speculated that his work would be largely ignored if this wasn't true. Benjiboi 20:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

misspelling of the word "erotically"

{{editprotected}} Hi, Admins, I'd just like to point out that in the section "Why I'm Gay" towards the bottom, there's a misspelling of the word "erotically". Rather, it is spelled "eroticly". Please make this minor change. ATD 14:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 20:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Incest?

He has new videos on Youtube kissing someone he claims is his brother. True or not, that seems notable --Gargletheape 17:04, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually he doesn't. It's an old vid of his that he pulled and others have reposted. In it he spoofs the idea of gay incest with his "brother" who was actually his boyfriend at the time. Benjiboi 17:28, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't The Stranger (newspaper) mention this? We could probably list his "incest" video with the others, explaining that the depicted relationship isn't actually incestuous. Ichormosquito 17:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
The Stranger article mentioned that his boyfriend was in a video, I believe, beyond that both this and the 9/11 video could go in a controversial videos section but it just didn't seem right to give them undue weight as they haven't gotten any press attention and both have been removed by Crocker so only exist with other's posting various versions of them. I'm open to the concept but at best I think they could be woven into text as comments on how he likes to push boundaries. Benjiboi 18:42, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
That sounds like a good idea. We should include the information somewhere. Ichormosquito 19:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, I would start a new third paragraph under "Building a following" section and speak to possible reasons his channels/personality combined with his videos attracted so much attention and include the two controversial ones as a mention. Benjiboi 19:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Ricky Dominguez Crockers rival?

Seems dubious at best, anyone heard of this or seen sources for same? Benjiboi 07:40, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


underaged photos

I've heard that the nude photos, which were supposedly taken when Chris Crocker was 17, contain meta data of when they were taken, and that the dates are after he turned 18. Is there any information on this? There seems to be significant interest in these photos, and many people who want to seem or distribute them don't solely because of the assumption that Chris was underage at the time. Considering that Chris already lied by claiming they were fakes, I wouldn't be surprised if he was lying about his age. Herorev 06:37, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It's discussed in the article under "Nude photos scandal". If you have a reliable source that has additional or different information please share it. Benjiboi 23:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)


Protection

Approaching a month on protection. It's time to get this consensus over with and unprotect the article. -- ALLSTARecho 04:26, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I've re-asked for folks from the two related wikiprojects to comment, I'm not sure of the timing on RfC's. Benjiboi 06:18, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Addition to "Parodies"

{{editprotect}} Add the following item to the "Parodies" column:

Another spoof was uploaded on Youtube on November 16, 2007 by a user posing as one of Santa Claus's Elves telling the public to "Leave Santa Alone"[2] (in response to the "Santas warned 'ho ho ho' offensive to women" story[3]) Mbrstooge (talk) 22:06, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree. The news.yahoo item doesn't mention Crocker or the video and hundreds of parodies of Crocker's video have been produced, few are notable. Benjiboi 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Not done.—Random832 01:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Deletion

I think we should delete this article, because it contributes little to wikipedia, and it seriously harms it's credibility. [[User:JamalThompson|JamalThompson]talk 23:32, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have some specific concerns to improve the article then please share; if not your general comment has been noted. Benjiboi 00:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Just a helpful note: please see the archived discussion for the The Angry Video Game Nerd (show) article. The user is a known vandal - which is evident from the contribution log. -DevinCook (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the heads up, I've learned WP:RBI if things get out of hand. Benjiboi 02:28, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Please note that this is not the proper forum to discuss article deletion. That process is located at WP:AFD. --Strothra (talk) 03:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
  • I believe the above comment was simply registering a generally dislike of the subject but I may be wrong. Benjiboi 04:53, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
It was, which is why it doesn't belong on the talk page. --Strothra (talk) 04:54, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Gotcha. Benjiboi 12:13, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

This article affects wikipedia's credibility, and chris crocker doesn't have enough merits to be in wikipedia. I suggest deletion.[[User:JamalThompson|JamalThompson]talk 23:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.201.1.111 (talk)

You've been told once already that this isn't the place to discuss deletion. Get a clue. -- ALLSTARecho 20:48, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
I think what Allstarecho means is that simply repeating essentially the same comment that started this thread doesn't seem constructive. You may wish to review the AfD discussion linked at the top of the talk page and if you wish to offer more thoughtful and constructive criticism return with something substantial that can either help take the article to a level you do support or otherwise convince previous supporters that the subject has now lost notability Which, I must confess, seems unlikely, even if he is simply noted as bookmarked Internet meme he did so at a international level and has been doing a circuit of nationwide (US) appearances. Benjiboi 02:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jamal, these kind of articles just don't belong to Wikipedia. (sorry i dunno how to sign)

Possible sockpuppet. Host resolves to same area as previous vandal. - DevinCook 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

What?(sorry i dunno how to sign)

Signing your comment helps us attribute who is stating what; in this case you're comment isn't really stating much anyway as the original comment wasn't constructive to offer any tangible insights as to article improvement or deletion. "I like it" is no more a reason to keep or not keep an article as someone else stating "I don't like it". Either make specific criticisms and constructive comments or move on to an article where you are able to help in such a manner. Benjiboi 09:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
This should not be deleted - there's way too much reliable source material here for deletion, and it's a good article.--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 06:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. (sorry i dunno how to sign) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.167.12.86 (talk) 06:49, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sock puppet. Same user as last two. Host resolves to same region. -DevinCook 07:16, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Chris Crocker

FYI: Chris Crocker is a real guy from Tennessee. There are probably at least a thousand people who remember him on AOL when he was about 13, running an e-zine; I am one of those people. He's always been extremely flamboyant, he's always pushed the envelope, and he has always had a distinct crowd of people either loving him or hating him. If there's one thing I wish I could yell out about this kid, it's that he DEFINITELY isn't another "lonelygirl15." He'd been stirring up controversy on the Internet for several YEARS before he became well known on YouTube. -- laura.kathleen@gmail.com adding sig to unsigned commentUser:71.68.41.120

Please provide references and add information about his early career to the article or add a link here for interested editors who would like to research the information. Benjiboi 21:51, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
Yes, please give us sources on this. Otherwise, claiming that he is not a phony in the manner that you have is essentially original research. Many people have claimed familiarity with the legitimacy of "Chris Crocker", but I haven't seen one who's cited tangible, credible sources. Zebraic 04:07, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Well, it is hard to provide sources of an e-zine that existed several years ago. That'd take some serious digging on my oldest PC, if in fact my Personal Filing Cabinet on AOL still exists. But the article by TheStranger does reference the same zine and same topics. Short of resurrecting a computer that's 5+ years old, I don't see how I can prove his previous online identity. The most I could tell you is that the most recent version of that zine was "Mizundastood," sometime around the last time P!NK released a CD. -- laura.kathleen@gmail.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.41.120 (talk) 09:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Actually that's a good start. The article doesn't have to go into excessive details on something that is likely to be considered a piece of his early history. How long was the zine(s) around, what were the subjects/issues, was it all his work, a collective effort? Did it come out quarterly, monthly, weekly, etc? Pretend you're just trying to bring a friend up to speed on what it was might help. Benjiboi 10:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
That's the thing -- it was mostly just a journal of sorts. The problems with his grandmother have been going on for YEARS. There was a lot of controversy regarding his online relationship with Angel, and a lot of people thought he was making a stupid choice in getting involved in an online, long-distance relationship. Chris actually wrote pretty decently for his age, but he was a very "in your face" sort of guy. A lot of people criticized him because of the racy photos he would post from time to time; even more so when he went through a "pop punk" sort of phase. People called him a "poser." Around the time that he sent out his e-zine, there was a huge presence on AOL of "the zine world." It was mostly pre-teens and teens. Chris was the last of an era of the "good editors" that put forth an effort to make a semi-professional impact on the ZW. Around the time he "left" the "zine world," the popularity of the e-zine had dwindled and now it has a tiny presence in AOL's community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.68.41.120 (talk) 18:53, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Benjiboy, I just found the information about Chris' real home town and I have a way to prove it, but I am afraid of posting this here and discussin it openly and putting his life and his grandparents and friends in danger so I want to hear what you've got to say about it, since you've been organising his article here. my email is xavierdenis@gmail.com and I would like to tell you how i found out. notice that we could be the ones who tell the world first wherehe actually comes from with this info i've got so i wantyou tothink about it and drop me a line. thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Denisxavier (talkcontribs) 17:38, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, actually I have no interest in revealing his identity or hometown and neither does wikipedia until it is widely known and covered in reliable sources up to wikipedia standards. Although it's exciting to break news that not what we do here and that information can bring real harm to a real person behind the persona, and if the information is wrong, could bring harm to someone else which is even worse. Benjiboi 05:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Is there any reason that this page needs to show this much detail? I'd argue that the only notable output of this individual is an internet meme, and therefore much of the rest of the information here is mere filler. I'd move for a massive cull of this pageBlaqkmage 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, too much detail. To me that seems to fly in the face of wikipedia being a source of knowledge but I'm sure it could be true. I can't speak for other editors but i know I have tried to restrain from including endless amounts of bio and his current media activities and even limited the number of videos out of the 60-70 known to under ten. Benjiboi 00:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I wonder why Chris warrants an article at all. But I also wonder why he can refer to himself as the "Queen of Complaint" on the basis that complaining is his "religion". Should complaint be his realm or dominion? Or should he be the acolyte/bishop/pope/etc. of complaint? What is his appropriate institutional relationship with complaint? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.155.6.180 (talk) 13:19, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if this is important or not, but at about 10:20 PM on Oct. 16, 2007, someone uploaded a video of Chris Crocker on Youtube, and it had him talking to a small audience in Las Vegas, talking about the lawsuit for a very short time, then he performs a striptease to Britney Spears' Gimme More song, or whatever it is. I didn't watch the whole thing, but he showed his bare bottom at least twice, one on camera, one off. When I refeshed it so I could know exactly how long it had been up, it had been taken off due to its terms of use violation (in under 1 hour). Just thought I should put the info up, since I can't edit the page yet. October 16, 2007, 22:56 (Jeefy69 02:59, 17 October 2007 (UTC))

Interesting but no, we can't really use it. If the video is reposted ... maybe. BTW, he's been touring around lately doing club appearances so articles are starting to hit and soon enough they'll discuss all sorts of stuff including lawsuits et al. Benjiboi 03:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

"America will never, ever forget you."

I don't know if "featured on Maury (TV series)", is worth adding, considering everything else he's popped up in, but here's a link, regardless: [1] Maury's quote is priceless. Ichormosquito 09:39, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

  • I definitely think it's worth adding. It's not just a news report. It's him, on the show, talking about it all. -- ALLSTAR ECHO 10:01, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
I've added the ref in the lede but not the quote as of yet. It seems terribly POV and the article is already has issues along promotional lines (or at least has been accused of such). After a little while we should have an update on if his show(s) materializes and then maybe use it to speak to his crossover to mainstream media. Along with whatever critics say about his shows. Benjiboi 23:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
  • America obviously will forget Chris Crocker. The entire world will. Things like this, come and go, he's already losing his popularity (finally). Quotes like this shouldn't need to be published. Bryceadams 13:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

New article in gay press with interview

It looks like gay press articles are starting to hit, this one covers etymology of Crocker's name and some extra bio material. Benjiboi 09:17, 6 October 2007 (UTC)


This has been protected a rather long time

Almost six weeks. Have the disputes really not been resolved yet? Are they that important to justify six weeks' full protection?--h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 16:23, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

&, does it need to be protected from even small changes, even by persons on here f/ several months?
There is some rather confusing punctuation.
One issue that should be added is that many authors have proclaimed that B. S. [?], B. J. S. [?], Britney, is "fat", not "phat", ostensibly f/ not being railthin anorexic. This critique is absurd. She ain't fat.
Also, when we are constrained, we frequently rebel by developing extreme traits.
Thank You,
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 18:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

(restoring talkcomment)

It does seem lengthy. I'll prod the LGBT folks to see what they recommend. I'm not sure i would call our current state as consensus but we only have one editor who strongly feels it should be included. Benjiboi 03:55, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I had commented on a discussion-link.
I had commented on the punctuation:
if that is "forum", than so are all discussion-pages.
I had commented on specific content:
if the "fat" comments had never been there, then they should have.
I, therefore, conclude that you are one of the ones who would advocate that she is fat.
I cannot think of any other reason to delete this. If that conclusion is wrong, it is yet rude censorship.
[[ hopiakuta Please do sign your signature on your message. ~~ Thank You. -]] 04:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
I find your alternative formatting of talk comments disruptive to talk page communication and your comments did not seem to be on content. I have no idea what "fat" comments in regards to Chris Crocker or Britney Spears you're referring - there is no mention in this article of either fat or phat. If you think Britney's weight should be discussed please take it to her article not this one. Benjiboi 04:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking up the page, it seems like consensus has been reached to me: there is a consensus that the disputed paragraph should not be included in this article. (For what it's worth, I support that view as well.) On the assumption that everyone here is going to stand by that, I'll go and request unprotection. Terraxos (talk) 17:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Your interpretation of consensus is pretty wonky so lucky for all of us you're not an admin. Discussion now is pretty split with several primary editors of the article wanting to keep it and other editors (experienced on many other articles) divided as to it's inclusion. I don't see consensus as being reached at all. Benjiboi 21:14, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


FYI

Resolved

FYI, [2] (currently ref 17) also mentions us: "If Wikipedia hasn’t recognized Chris as an official Internet phenomenon, he certainly is now" Jason McHuff (talk) 13:06, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that media article links to Internet phenomena and not this article but thank you for the heads-up. Benjiboi 20:41, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Article is biased

Resolved

I don't see a single mention of his 9/11 video or that video where he kissed his brother.--Wussycat (talk) 22:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You don't see a single mention of his 9/11 video because we had a discussion about it already and it's not included per that discussion. Regarding the video about his brother, it wasn't his brother but his boyfriend at the time. Do more research on Google and you'll see where he admitted it wasn't really his brother but instead was his ex. -- ALLSTARecho 23:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Just Amazed...

Resolved

...that this passes the notability test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.14.104.198 (talk) 17:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't see why you're amazed. He's famous. All over the news. TV production deal. Spoofed by celebrities. A regular recurring character on Jimmy Kimmel show. Yeah, he's quite notable. -- ALLSTARecho 17:55, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

WRONG MYSPACE

Resolved

Its www.myspace.com/chriscrocker NOT www.myspace.com/itschriscrocker

"itschriscrocker" is someone getting people to add them on myspace so they can get more friends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.149.192.11 (talk) 22:48, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A quick check on his youtube site confirms this, the formaer MySpace account may still be valid but for whatever reason this is now listed as the official one and we should update accordingly. Thank you for catching that! Benjiboi 05:51, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Please replace "www.MySpace.com/ItsChrisCrocker" in the bio box with "www.MySpace.com/ChrisCrocker" Benjiboi

done. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

media mention

Resolved

FYI, [3] (currently ref 17) also mentions us: "If Wikipedia hasn’t recognized Chris as an official Internet phenomenon, he certainly is now" Jason McHuff (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually that's not mentioning this article just wikipedia. Benjiboi 05:56, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

YouTube sourcing concerns

The longer this article gets, the more certain statements (sourced solely to YouTube - which seems to be in conflict with WP:RS) don't seem to belong here. I'm going to work on cleaning it up and trimming off some of the fat so to speak, but if anyone else wants to pitch in or has any advice on how to handle this one, that would be great. To be specific, I'm talking about things like video view count claims (which can be manipulated) that have no other sources to demonstrate notability. Feather Jonah (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Why, exactly, are we allowing YouTube ANYWHERE on WP as a source, save articles directly addressing it? Looks like way too much content to delete for anyone but a mod. RvLeshrac (talk) 04:08, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

The project never has had a problem with external linking to YouTube, but citations to that website need to be kept to a bare minimum. Go ahead and edit it, but please avoid cutting into the meat while trimming the fat. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Discography citations

Are there any more reliable sources available for the singles? Sales links such as iTunes and Amazon download pages seem to serve as promotion rather than verification...and there are some social network announcements in the mix again, which are not solid enough to verify that these singles were actually released. Feather Jonah (talk) 02:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://chris-crocker.org/selected-videography/ (content added here. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 19:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Lengthy entry

This entry seems to be rather long and overly detailed for a person with such minimal importance in the world. --157.254.178.140 (talk) 00:57, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

Latest gender identity matter

Regarding the topic of whether Crocker has finally transitioned to a female identity for good, I started a discussion on this matter at the WP:BLP noticeboard: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Gender identity matter at Chris Crocker article. A WP:Permalink for that is here. Flyer22 (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

YouTube channel closure

recently, Crocker closed his YouTube channel. idk whether to update the article, but i will go ahead and put an {{outdated}} template on it. 173.85.202.225 (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Britney

He was serious when he've made "Britney alone", or it was a joke? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:5CD3:1365:4CCC:D8F3 (talk) 07:22, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Regardless, this is not a forum. Read the article and draw your own conclusions. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 04:01, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chris Crocker. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • 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.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:52, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b Rivera, Steve (September 29, 2007). "Why We Like To Look:Voyeurism Proof of Moral Corruption, Psychologist Says". Tucson Citizen. Retrieved 2007-10-01.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  2. ^ Leave Santa Alone - YouTube video (uploaded November 16, 2007)
  3. ^ Santas warned 'ho ho ho' offensive to women Yahoo! News/AP