Talk:Fear (1996 film)

message: :Image:Fear film.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. 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 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 07:39, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Fear film.jpg

message: Although Margo claims "he made me do it", it is not entirely clear that was the case - she could just be saying that to excuse herself. -- Beardo (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  David and Margo 

message: Crotchety Old Man, would you please explain this edit?  I'm not familiar with the film.  Why do you think these changes are necessary?  Why did you call reverts of your edit "vandalism"?  As far as I can tell, not being familiar with the topic, either version looks OK to me. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:38, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Lists of how people die are not remotely relevant to something trying to resemble an encyclopedia.  And it's vandalism because the IP is edit warring.  He has a history of being a foul-mouthed troll. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:12, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Whoops.  Thought you were an admin, and that you had a clue. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 00:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: WOW, you have a major attitude problem. --Splatterhouse1 (talk) 13:43, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: And you've just been reported as a sock-puppet of a blocked user.  Adios! Crotchety Old Man (talk) 14:24, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Simply editwarring doesn't fit the definition of vandalism; if it did, your own edits to this page would be vandalism, Crotchety Old Man.  No, most editwarring is done in good faith in an effort to improve the article; it may be disruptive and disallowed, but is not vandalism.  In the interests of civility, please avoid using the word "vandalism" unless the edits clearly fit the definition at WP:VAND. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 23:31, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The user in question has been blocked, along with another sock-puppet.  Please try and keep up.  Thanks in advance. Crotchety Old Man (talk) 23:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

text: And I don't care. I have numerous accounts. Adios tu viejo cabron. :P  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.23.113.18 (talk) 20:19, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please explain edits