Talk:Jamie Waylett

Drug use

I removed the references to drug use reported by The People newspaper per WP:RS and WP:BLP. The publication appears to be a supermarket tabloid, and I could not verify the story with any other news sources using Google news search. Jfredrickson 06:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Despite the fact that the newspaper is trash, the reporting of such an allegation (in a national newspaper) may be worthy of a mention. The allegations published do not have to be verifiable or reliable themselves for the reporting of them to be mentioned, as long as the mention of them is not repeating the allegations (which previous edit's to the article seem to do). Timb0h 15:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed these allegations. The People article is a questionable source per WP:RS, and the allegations in the article are credited to an anonymous friend. This is wholly unreliable and exactly the kind of thing WP:BLP is supposed to keep out. If there are reliable sources for this, by all means put them in, but the People article and its derivations are wholly inadequate. Vashti 17:29, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Irrelevant story

I removed the lines about the casting agents and such as that would be considered gossip, or irrelevant information to the article. Wikiburger 19:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Added an image

I was browsing through my old photos today and pulled out this one I took of when Jamie was in attendance at a Collectormania event one year (I can't remember which year, either 2005 or 2006). I apologise for the bad quality —— RyanLupin • (talk) 11:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Deleted BMI info

Very useless info which did not add to the article at all and was very out of place. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.103.200.39 (talk) 03:59, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Crabbe from Harry Potter is 'lucky to be alive'

This is an 'interesting' article about Waylett from CBCC; it should be introduced to the article: Crabbe from Harry Potter is 'lucky to be alive'. Alex Douglas (talk) 08:47, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jamie Waylett. 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/20090726044516/http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090721/tuk-potter-actor-to-do-community-work-6323e80.html to http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20090721/tuk-potter-actor-to-do-community-work-6323e80.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090716172931/http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelondonpaper/celebrity/harry-potter-star-jamie-waylett-arrested-over-cannabis-farm to http://www.thelondonpaper.com/thelondonpaper/celebrity/harry-potter-star-jamie-waylett-arrested-over-cannabis-farm

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 14:52, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Edit War

There may be an edit war soon. I advise any reverters to express their feelings on here so we can talk things out rather than have an edit war. I am being civil here. --KirkVHouten (talk) 13:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)

The version you are reverting to is a clear BLP violation. Even if sourced, the content "aside from his consciousness in regards to stolen goods" is not encyclopedic in tone and is clearly intended to disparage the subject. --Chris (talk) 04:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

What camera?

The article states "other images on the camera" without every specifying before that point *what* camera is being discussed, or even that a camera was involved. I don't have enough background knowledge to correct this directly, so I will note it here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.120.150.217 (talk) 06:18, 1 May 2020 (UTC)