Talk:Emma Griffiths

Needs rewriting

This article need a re haul. The pic is to big and it seems some what biased. "The beautiful..." is an oppinion is it not? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.212.242.47 (talk • contribs) 19:22:06 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It's an 'opinion' very few would argue with, though!

Labcoat 17:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second that opinion, or should that be I third that opinion? I saw her last night on Channel 4, hosting Big Brother's Big Mouth. This morning I went off in search of more information about her.

From the moment I saw her, I could not stop myself from thinking: "Who is this lovely young woman who is so full of warmth, enthusiasm and intelligence? I liked Russell Brand but he does not have half the class of this lady. She looked so wonderful with that bright, intelligent, beautiful and attractive countenance and those wonderful bright, blue eyes?

Also, I have yet to notice anything wrong with the tone of this article. Although, I must confess, I stayed not more than a nanosecond. I wished to carry on searching the Internet for images of this Goddess Incarnate!

Richard Gillard 10:58, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, as for the suggestion that the photograph was too big, this is an oxymoron surely? When a young lady looks this good, how can any picture of her possibly be too big? In fact, I'm strongly tempted to rush off and buy myself one of those giant plasma screens for my PC and make it just a little bigger.

Richard Gillard 11:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't she a model for Gossard before getting on to MTV? I vaguely recall her appearing in Maxin or FHM or the like as an underwear model, unrelated to her getting on MTV. (Watching her on MTV and her skin is a strange orange colour, weird. The girl sitting besider her looks normal.) Horkana

Shouldnt there be a disambiguation paragraph? - I came here for information on Emma Griffiths the news correspondent in Russia. pete 13:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

This page was edited yesterday (30th Oct) with a single copyright protection tag/template. The user only has two WP contributions - one to this article and another (same time/date) to the copyright problems page. The edit implied that the external link to the subject's personal website was a copyright violation of some sort. Since it wasn't clear to me why this has been applied to this article, I've reverted the edit - but I apologise if this is legit! Booglamay 23:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]