User talk:The exclusive bad apple

yes dum dum dugan is an integral part of the marvel universe i could not make a mistake like that also maybe it should just be a prerequisit that if i post on a new users talk page ur a SOCK PUPPET OF MAOIR

me n scott r goin to wolf trap to hear teh national symphony orchestra play wow music

dude i luv that song its off da chain

chek email

you like?

i hope you die in a grave for seeing that movie

what do you mean everything i hold ironic i actually like borat and that is the kind of movie people should be cheering for :)

no i like it cuz its funny :)

november but dey been screenin at tons of comiccons and shit

cody when does school start so you can make fun of gillespie

Image copyright problem with Image:Don_siegel.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Don_siegel.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:28, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Ladykillers[edit]

Your reversion doesn't make sense to me. Please explain what you mean. Why is it "in vain"? Clarityfiend 09:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, as you did to Image:AMBeauty2.jpg, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Yamla 22:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism[edit]

You said: "I was reverting Vandalism, not vandalzing. get it right."

No, you removed a signed comment from the image page. --Yamla 00:41, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "That signed comment was unncessary and was an attempt to silence the efforts of the original poster of that image."

It was not. If I was attempting to silence the original poster, I'd have removed the original comment. Like you did to mine. --Yamla 01:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Melissamilano2.jpg[edit]

This file may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Melissamilano2.jpg. 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. When you use a generic fair use tag such as {{fair use}} or {{fair use in|article name}}, 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 you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images 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. Yamla 01:44, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Melissamilano2.jpg[edit]

Please see WP:FUC. We cannot use that image because it could be replaced by a free image. Also, please see WP:3RR. You haven't violated that policy but I'm just letting you know. --Yamla 01:54, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Then go ahead and replace it with a free one then until then the image stays."

That's not what WP:FUC requires. Please reread WP:FUC. --Yamla 03:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:AMBeauty2.jpg[edit]

Please see WP:NPA. Stating a fact as to the fair-use of Image:AMBeauty2.jpg is not a personal attack, nor can it be considered derogatory. --Yamla 03:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "Always use a more free alternative if one is available. Such images can often be used more readily outside the U.S. If you see a fair use image and know of an alternative more free equivalent, please replace it, so the Wikipedia can become as free as possible. Eventually we may have a way to identify images as more restricted than GFDL on the article pages, to make the desire for a more free image more obvious. So replace it with a free one, or it stays. Until you can cite the exact part of the FUC article instead of just arbitrarily pointing at it, the image stays."

Sure thing. "1. No free equivalent is available or could be created that would adequately give the same information." Point one. Clear as day. --Yamla 02:31, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um you realize all that does is support my argument. The fact that no free equivalent is available furthers my point that the image could be used. You seem to like avoiding finding the alternative free use image.

Wait, are you seriously trying to argue that no free use image of Melissa Milano could be created? --Yamla 14:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You said: "And yet you still fail to provide a free use alternative. Sorry, but your argument is looking very weak."

You are confused. The existence of a free alternative is irrelevant to WP:FUC. The only important thing is whether one could be created and given that this person is alive, this is certainly the case. Anyway, it is most certainly not my responsibility to produce such an image. --Yamla 18:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

You have been blocked for 24 hours for your recent edit to Mena Suvari. You have been pointed to our fair-use policy over and over and yet took it upon yourself to add an image in direct violation to that policy to this page. --Yamla 14:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked for 48 hours for your continued image copyright and fair-use violations. --Yamla 18:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Menasuvari5.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Menasuvari5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 06:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Orphaned fair use image (Image:Beguiled.jpg)[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Beguiled.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable under fair use (see our fair use policy).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. This is an automated message from BJBot 15:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]