Talk:Emily VanCamp/Archive 1
 | 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 |
Article information
What the hell happened to this article? It's been reduced to a few quotes and trivia points and looks like a glorified stub. Is this somebody's idea of a good rewrite? 203.194.53.14 17:53, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- This edit indicates that a large portion of the article was copied from another website and was therefore removed as a copyright violation. Slideshow Bob 17:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why wasn't it simply rewritten? Wikipedia uses third party information as a rule, doesn't it? 203.194.53.14 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Removing copyright violations is something that should be done immediately upon discovery, and only takes a moment. I suppose rewriting that section fell outside time restraints or the scope of interests of that other editor. Perhaps someone with an interest in Emily VanCamp can step up and do the rewrite (hint, hint). That's the only way that Wikipedia articles get written. Slideshow Bob 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I'm afraid I've become quite fed up with the increasing amounts of red tape and policy heaped on Wikipedia's editors and am now on indefinite hiatus. I'm also fed up with administrators reducing articles to footnotes to fit with policy and then not taking the time to fix or rewrite them properly. What's left of this article being a perfect example. 203.194.53.14 18:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Removing copyright violations is something that should be done immediately upon discovery, and only takes a moment. I suppose rewriting that section fell outside time restraints or the scope of interests of that other editor. Perhaps someone with an interest in Emily VanCamp can step up and do the rewrite (hint, hint). That's the only way that Wikipedia articles get written. Slideshow Bob 18:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
- Why wasn't it simply rewritten? Wikipedia uses third party information as a rule, doesn't it? 203.194.53.14 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Rebharp.jpg
Image:Rebharp.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 17:10, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk
Information Copied from IMDB.com
Much of the information here has been copied verbatim from IMDB.com. It is not very well written and likely is out of date. LLP 15:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- So go ahead and re-write it. Gamer Junkie 21:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
IMHO the name must be Van Camp, 2 words...
- VanCamp is one word. ★Ffgamera★ - My page! · Talk to me!· Contribs 22:36, 11 January 2012 (UTC)