Talk:James Charles/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 8 April 2021

‹ The template below (Edit semi-protected) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. ›

This edit request to James Charles (internet personality) has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Make sure to put on the wiki that he is a pedofile please. People should know everything 47.145.39.64 (talk) 16:24, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Not done: The article already covers the incident you are referring to in an appropriate manner. Vahurzpu (talk) 17:18, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

add a "controversies" type section ?

controversies / etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by JointCompound (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, seems to me that most of "Public Image" section should be in a "controversies" section instead. Of the universe (talk) 06:38, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

@Of the universe: I changed "Public image" to "Controversies" but they reverted. Do you agree to edit it? HONDA Gang (Talk) 16:41, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the "controversies" heading back to "public image". Labeling the entire section as controversies is incorrect and misleading given that not everything mentioned is controversial. The controversies do contribute to his personal image, though. Alex (talk) 10:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Inappropriate info box image

Can we revert the info box image from this article, as it is clearly inappropriate? I know it says not to, but this really shouldn’t be a question at this point 1bcdbackup (talk) 00:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

My bad it’s not in the inbox, I was confused since I’m on mobile, but still not appropriate 1bcdbackup (talk) 00:09, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

There are 110 people watching this page and all of them are allowing these gross BLP violations. It's incredible. (CC) Tbhotch^™ 15:14, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

I would note that only 32 of those editors have visited recent edits and as such a large proportion of the editors with this on their watchlist had not reviewed the edit. passing through after looking at AN. Too late in my timezone to evaluate this.. Dreamy Jazz ^{talk to me | my contributions} 22:54, 16 May 2021 (UTC)