Talk:Your Mommy Kills Animals

OR
Fourdee, quit the original research and find sources that discuss this film. When you have them, stick very closely to what THEY say, not what you think they ought to say. If you can't find sources, it will have to be deleted as non-notable. SlimVirgin (talk) (contribs) 05:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

External link
I can live without the reference to "the paper", but the external link is to the movie's official site, specifically permitted by External links: "Links normally to be avoided Except for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject—and not prohibited by restrictions on linking—one should avoid..." --AnonEMouse (squeak) 13:27, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Your-Mommy-Kills-Animals Poster.jpg
Image:Your-Mommy-Kills-Animals Poster.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 this Wikipedia article 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 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 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 (talk) 21:46, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

reviews of this movie
There are more on rotten tomatoes.
 * http://www.eyeweekly.com/film/onscreen/article/14204
 * http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07250/815290-42.stm
 * http://www.variety.com/review/VE1117933428.html?categoryid=31&cs=1 P4k (talk) 07:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Reposting reviews from copyrighted websites is a violation of Wiki copyright policy. Please see the line directly under the editing box which states "Content that violates any copyrights will be deleted." The other edits which I've repeatedly reverted are unreferenced crap, which is also subject to immediate removal. If you somehow believe that these edits have some merit, or are not copyrighted, please comment on this page to support your POV. Do not mass revert these edits without prior discussion. Bob98133 (talk) 18:29, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Improving this article
Editors are invited to check news articles and reviews of this film in futher work to improve and cite.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 02:03, 17 July 2010 (UTC)