Talk:Regina Buenaobra

Speculation and discussion of other people's personal life is not cool nor fair.

Jumping to conclusions and making assumptions based on circumstantial evidence is a violation of the values behind GW:NPA, even if nobody is actually "flaming".

Please keep that in mind in all future discussions.

Archived Topics

Archive 1- Side conversations

Mass Censorship

This was relevant to the community and there was considered argument from concerned parties. This should be reinstated in my opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.192.60.20 (contribs) .

It is located in the archive link above. -- Sk8 (T/C) 22:21, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

You want to rez that shitstorm? How was it helping the community? At the point it got to, it was all pointing fingers and he-said-she-said and "you're a crappy parent" and nonsense. I think it's fair to establish that statements about someone without proof is unfair. Just because person x joins movement y which is stereotypically full of z's doesn't mean that person x is a z. Ezekial Riddle 03:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless person y is me or Maui lol Lost-Blue 03:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Gah, do I have to include exceptions in my example? Ezekial Riddle 04:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Community Relations Manager

A lot of her articles are very offensive. I'm disappointed at her appointment to this position and I hope she doesn't let her prejudices affect the community. Comments like "Have you heard how immature guys talk to each other? Quite honestly, it’s embarrassing, ridiculous, and stupid. Why would I want to be a part of that?"^[1] fill me with worry when she's supposed to interact with the community, most of whom are teenage boys. -- Useve 16:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that siting a source of hers from almost a year ago justifies your concerns. Why does that comment bother you anyways? A good portion of gaming community consists of immature players. I think alot of statements made in that article are valid. -- Sk8 (T/C) 15:37, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Unless you're saying you're an immature guy, why is that statement offensive? It's a fact, considering they're immature guys. The only offensive things being said are the countless moronic things being said about Regina for no reason whatsoever. The way certain members of this community have acted towards her makes me extremely disappointed in the player base of my favourite online game, and in humanity in general. Capcom 18:21, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Please read the big yellow box at the top of this page.-- - (Talk/Contribs) 18:33, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of photo

I disagree with "who cares". What I am interested in is whether we can claim fairuse, and/or if someone can seek permission on behalf on GuildWiki to use the photo. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 22:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

No watermark = fair use. I'm sure Regina or the magazine that hosted it wouldn't give a damn anyways, it's more advertising for them if anything. Rue Bemeria 18:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

This image does not qualify under fair use. To begin with, a person is not an object. Furthermore a picture of the new CM is not information that is necessary to the content of the article. Finally, neither Regina or the magazine have been contacted regarding the use of this image, so you don't know whether or not they are okay with it. It has been used without permission. 24.18.150.225 18:50, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

It's very nice of you to defend her. 18:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Um, what exactly is your point? You are using a copyrighted image illegally without permission. That's my point. 24.18.150.225 18:54, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

First off, Mister Anon, you won't get anywhere with that attitude. I'm no expert with licensing, so perhaps it doesn't qualify for fair use. In any case, since this seems to matter so much to you, why don't you scamper on over to GWW and ask Regina whether she'd like us to display her picture or not. 18:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Why do you persist in assuming that anonymous contributors are male? That's sexist. And no, you are not an expert with licensing. That much is obvious. 24.18.150.225 19:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Careful, buddy. You might want to take a look at GW:NPA before you continue. 19:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Felix, you need to chill. How in the world does a discussion about the usage of a photo gets into "defending" Regina??? I agree with most of what the anon said right now, except the if the magazine holds the copyright, then even if Regina says ok, it would still not be fine to use the image without the magazine's position. -User:PanSola (talk to the ) 23:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)