Talk:Adam Schiff (Law & Order)
 | This is the talk page of a redirect that targets the page: • List of Law & Order characters Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at: • Talk:List of Law & Order characters |
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 24 September 2023. The result of the discussion was redirect. |
 | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||
Fair use rationale for Image:Adam -2-.jpg
edit
Image:Adam -2-.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 Wikipedia articles 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.
If there is other 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 16:13, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
#c-BetacommandBot-2007-05-31T16:13:00.000Z-Fair_use_rationale_for_Image:Adam_-2-.jpg){kind=link}
Departure from law and Order
editWhy was Adam Schiff's character written off Law and Order? There is no mention of it in he main article.--Reverend Edward Brain, D.D. (talk) 20:59, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
“Re-contextualized electoral challenge, based on common sense, and ...
edit(... on experience with editors settling on vague wordings without assessing whether more clarifying detail might matter”
— in this case, because any fool can become a nominal and insignificant opposing candidate, unworthy — in such a brief summary of the episode — even of mention and perhaps merely enhancing the viewer’s sense of denouement, and of transition to commercials and the following show).
’Tis thus that I summarized, briefly for the Hx and more thoroly on this talk page ... assessing that a sufficiently careful editor would have taken the trouble to clarify, about whether the char took the challenge seriously or not; thereby and thus, I leave to other colleagues to use WP:RS to judge whether that “challenge” is, on one hand,
- excessive attention to “merely corroborative detail, to add substance to an otherwise bald and unconvincing narrative”, or
- on the other, it has been cluttered with inconsequential detail, and deserves clarification via research ...which I leave to another, even more motivated volunteer editor.
--2601:199:C201:FD70:194C:E00D:4EE9:163A (talk) 07:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC) (ex-User:Jerzy, ex-User:JerzyA) 07:06, 7 September 2020 (UTC)