Talk:Christian Weston Chandler

Delete

This page is a huge magnet for trolls. Nearly every edit has been by a troll adding vandalism. Qazwsxedc 01:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Regardless, he's still something of a local celebrity. Lock it until they forget. These dudes don't have the longest attention spans. --Pumj 01:43, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Agreed with deletion. Also looks like you should block an IP range, not just individual users, if possible. -- 16:02, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I Disagree. Chris is a struggling artist with a large fanbase. As such he deserve some support from his community. Griffintown 19:43, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

It should mention somewhere that he threatens local business owners. --Snyder 06:32, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

It should be deleted on the grounds that half of it is completely False such as him being "successful published artist" or that darkhorse is thinking of publishing his works. he is not published and he lacks the knowledge of the comic book industry to be published. --Komrad12

Page has been protected as a result of more vandalism. --BrianWheeler 10:27, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Seriously people? I have no problem with people with autism but he is a blight on out community. He has been banned by several businesses for being rude to people or yelling racist comments and verbally abusing kids. He is not a struggling artist by any meaning of the time and he has no fanbase, just a bunch of people who find him hilariously stupid. This article needs deletion or atleast opening up to editing. Much of the stuff you refer to as vandalism is also the truth, which is welcome compared to the outright lies and jokes this article is currently filled with. --Snowflake eel 02:33, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Internet Celebrity?

Until someone can produce a definite definition of an Internet Celebrity, I disagree with this page (Which I can imagine was written under the close watch of Mr. Chandler) and it's claim he's an internet celebrity. Internet celebrities are personalities like Lucas Cruikshank (Fred) or James Rolfe (The Angry Nintendo Nerd) whom I've heard of on various sites, formats, and news outlets beyond just a couple of web pages.

I can say that being your average internet denizen, that I have never heard of Mr. Chandler or his antics beyond his YouTube channels, his articles on Encyclopedia Dramatica, and his own wiki. I would like to ask editors out there to re-evaluate what makes an internet celebrity, and, with respect to Mr. Chandler, whether he fits that bill. --KentuckyFriedGunman 16:56, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

• Shouldn't the fact that you, yourself, just now, being an "average internet denizen", in your last comment gave three, very popular, bona fide places you've heard of him, along with the fact that a large amount of people are eager to write about him here make him notorious enough? Artiph 00:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

That comment did not make sense. Further elaboration would help. --KentuckyFriedGunman 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm the original creator of this article, and I can guarantee you that Mr. Chandler doesn't know of this page, and that it was entirely fan-made. Also, Mr. Gunman, the fact that you have listed Chris Chandler as one of your potential "Targets" on your blog (here: http://kfgfilms.blogspot.com/?zx=cada791d4586782c ) proves that you are not only of considerably bad taste, but also clearly biased against this individual, and thus not in a position to question the validity of this article. Jim Watson 00:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

What was said on the blog proves nothing, and what you did cite was taken out of context. Please do your homework before making such bold accusations. Also, another bold statement you said about Mr. Chandler's unawareness of this particular article sounds very odd. An oddness I'd like to call "suspicious". I would love proof, if any, that Mr. Chandler is entirely unaware of wiki articles about him. --KentuckyFriedGunman 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

The burden of proof isn't on me, you're the one suggesting this page was written by or under close supervision of Chris. Do you have any evidence linking Chris to this page? Well, neither do I. Jim Watson 23:44, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• What defines an internet celebrity? Christian has had his photo tweeted by none other than Nicole Ritchie. He's appeared on breakfast radio shows and had an entire segment to devoted him on the evening news. Christian has described himself as "internet famous", and he is his own best source. --Frenchonion 06:24, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would love your clear definition of fame. Appearing on local television and local morning zoo radio shows does not make one an internet celebrity, as by your definition, I have become an internet sensation, being asked questions on CBS Sunday Morning and appearing twice on local news stories on our PBS and CBS affiliates. Furthermore, there are at least 20+ sockpuppets of Nicole Ritchie on Twitter, and any one of them posting someones picture does not make them famous on the internet. --KentuckyFriedGunman 18:33, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: I must point out that using Frenchonion's formidable logic, that I also qualify as an internet celebrity based on my own testimony. After all, I AM the best source of info about myself. --KentuckyFriedGunman 19:13, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

• Hey KFG, seriously, what are you doing here? You have never made an edit to the Cvillepedia and you probably don't even live in Charlottesville, why do you care about Christian Weston Chandler then? Maybe because he's an e-celebrity? Oh, and besides that, the fact that your childish webshow spends time on Christian Weston Chandler, someone who you obviously don't know in person, pretty much proves that he has e-fame. Why else would you schedule a show about him... Jim Watson 23:40, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

I would like to kindly ask Mr. Watson to please take off his baby bib and kindly and respectfully engage in polite debate like a gentleman. To the subject at hand: I have focused in the past on obscure targets like 93Oxy1, WolfeeDarkfang, and FAFFF2. Who I target does not dictate whether or not someone is an internet celebrity. --KentuckyFriedGunman 01:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

EDIT: As far as I can tell, I'm doing the shows I do to the best of my abilities with the tools that I have available. I'm starting to feel like insults like yours are due to a lack of a solid argument.--KentuckyFriedGunman 01:41, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• I'm not insulting your show, I'm only stating it's childish. Calling yourself a "gunman" and selecting "targets" seems like a very childish way to joke around with something that could be seen as very threatening and dangerous. And besides that, you happen to have a grudge against this Christian Weston Chandler, so you come on here, without having any connection whatsoever with this Wiki, and you think you can decide wether this article gets deleted or not? That's terrible abuse of the democratic workings of a wiki-style site. Please refrain from this behaviour. Jim Watson 02:15, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

• Let me get this straight: Your basis that my show is childish is my name and use of a single term. For the third straight time, you have distorted my comments in your favor in order to make me look like a totalitarianist dictator/gun nut/idiot savant. Never did I say that the article should come down. I merely expressed my opinion that a couple of minor rewrites are necessary. Apparently, your mind cannot comprehend that, and you in turn decide to call my show childish to make you feel better about yourself. I would like to ask: Do you think that helps?--KentuckyFriedGunman 02:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

It's pretty obvious we're dealing with a child here. One way out of his league. Whether he agrees with it or not, Christian is an internet celebrity whose videos receive thens of thousands of views. KFG is a unnotable attention seeker whose videos get, at best, 150 views after two months. And yet he's here boasting of his internet fame and talking down to the wrong people? He may come to regret speaking to his betters this way. --Frenchonion 05:42, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Your arguments have progressed from mildly respectful to flat-out rude and off-topic. Your solution for lack of an effective argument appears to be to use Hearstesque smear tactics and labeling the opponent a jealous attention whore. I would like to meet someone on this particular website with the brains to make a REAL argument instead of calling the opponent immature, which I must point out, is itself immature.--KentuckyFriedGunman 15:14, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

There is nothing more irritating than a seventeen year old kid trying to argue logical semantics on the internet. You are not a debating master able to destroy my "arguments" with airtight logic. You are an attention seeking teenager under the wrong impression that Chris himself created this page, and you're attempting to gain internet glory for yourself by having it taken down. If you keep this up you may achieve the internet fame you're desperate have, but not for reasons you will like. --Frenchonion 04:30, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Go ahead. Why make a logical and well-thought out and researched argument to counter your opponent, when you can just raise your index finger at him and call him an immature attention whore? On another note: for the second time, I do not want this article down. I think a couple of rewrites can't hurt, but I don't care one way or another about whether you guys will take it down or not. I never implied that Chris created the page either. I said, and I quote, "I can imagine was written under the close watch of Mr. Chandler". Please simply make an argument without resorting to smear tactics or labels or quote misrepresentation.--KentuckyFriedGunman 05:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sorry Michael but I don't do logic-based semantic arguments on the internet with teenagers. --Frenchonion 12:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

My name is not Michael. Anyways, if you're going to dismiss my entire argument on the basis of your opponent's supposed age, you indeed were as half-witted as I thought you were. Debate is based on logic, not crippled by it. Your idea of debate appears to be to mindlessly prejudge the opponent based on age.

Oh, by the way, kindly stop stalking me on YouTube.--KentuckyFriedGunman 15:24, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

According to your MySpace it is. You really need to find something to do, kid. --Frenchonion 16:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh by the way, if you've been contacted over YouTube it ain't me. --Frenchonion 16:10, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I do not own a Myspace. Anyways, whoever you're talking to is an impostor. My name is not Michael and my age is not 17, and most of my peers would describe me as knowing much information on just about anything and everything.

Now that I have realized where you're getting this dubiously-sourced intel, I would greatly appreciate it (and drop the whole argument) if you could kindly direct me to this Myspace profile in question.--KentuckyFriedGunman 17:19, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

So... Need some time to think, Onion?--KentuckyFriedGunman 00:51, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

This page is irrelavent/inapropriate

I do not understand why this page exists as based on previous posts you seem to be his "fans" and the fact that any website of this kind should really only contain facts. Almost all of the information in this pages seems to be referenced from encyclopaedia dramatica and what is the point in making a joke page about someone on an other wise serious site. I have no opinion for or against this man, but the facts are his comics are poorly made and illogical and would not be published and his copyright infringing character would never be pursued by nintendo or sega since they already own the rights to pokemon and sonic respectively. This article paints him in a very false light as he is actually a very rude and racist man who is less of an internet celebrity and more of attention whore. These articles should provide facts and should not be based around making Chris feel good. This article should either be removed entirely or if you wish to keep it positive then you should cut it down to the facts. It is kind of inappropriate just to make an article like this since his real claim to fame is the amount he is ridiculed on the internet and way he reacts to it and targets people, groups, and races. His comic and other facts were only discovered when people started paying attention to him and realised how entertained they were by an autistic man with high hopes for his childish comics. --Snowflake eel 07:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Sonichu

Please note that Chris officially (and accidentally) gave away the legal owner ship of sonichu when he got rid of CWCpedia. The domain name was then purchased and due to the way eh registered it, all his work was owned by the domain name, and the new owner of the domain is the legal owner of all his works. Since he no longer owns or has the right to make these works the "comics" section of this page requires a massive rewrite.--Snowflake eel 07:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Massive Clean Up

This page is just plane sloppy for one thing there are factual mistakes like how he is not a published comics writer. Also his last three sweethearts didnt die its common that he will claim people "died" when he means broken off all contact.

CWCkipeida link is dead

New site is Sonichu.com

Facts

Mr. Chandler has an entire wiki devoted to him, accessible at sonichu.com. I recommend visiting it and changing the article to reflect those facts. It is very clear that Mr. Chandler either wrote this article himself or provided all the facts, but much of this is clearly inaccurate, and biased from Mr. Chandler's point-of-view. His comics are not internet-famous, and the vast majority of the internet has never heard of him, regardless of what he thinks. If he is notable in the community, it is for being a loud-mouthed, rude, egotistical child, and this article is therefore pointless.