User talk:Phil Bond

Tekken images
They continue to be reverted due the fact that the images qualify as copyright violations, lack source information, and do not accomplish anything the original images did not. Such images are prohibited to be inserted into main space per various policies. Images are an serious copyright matter (among other things) and we must take it seriously. Wikipedia is also not a gallery; images only exist as to assist the reader. If the editor decides to review policy and copyright issues, as well as encyclopedic content, then perhaps the images can stay. We are present to write an proffessional encyclopedia, not festoon webpages for art galleries.-ZeroTalk 14:50, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, number one: there's a lot of condescension in there. Very impolite on someone else's user talk page, directly under an award someone was nice enough to give them. Number two, I wonder whether you noticed that the guy updated most all of the Tekken character pages, not just Eddy Gordo. Number three, the new images are high-resolution publicity images from Namco's website, the same images used in the current version of the game. They're from practically the same source as the prior generation of character images, so if the old ones didn't violate a copyright, then neither should these. Last and least, the notion that using more current media doesn't assist the reader, but rather is "festoonery," is absurd. It's also a very ostentatious word.Phil Bond 08:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The pure fact of the matter is that they lacked source information and used deliberatly falsified copyright tags that violated policy (such as free-copyright) witch is a blockable offense. He also uploaded brand new images instead of simply uploading over the previous version, wasting resources. No matter, however, they've been deleted, and he's been given notice of breaching policy. If you wish to avoid such scruntiny, you will read the copyright and images policys too. This is a very sensitive affair that is to be taken seriously.-ZeroTalk 09:49, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * What are you, threatening me because I sought dialog for the education of a naive newb? The reason he keeps replacing the images, reversion after reversion, isn't because he's a troll, but because he doesn't understand the problem and needs to see a dissuasion I'd suggest hiding a note in the html, because the user seems like they might be too simple to know about edit histories or talk pages. As for myself and my own practices, I suppose I appreciate the word of caution, though I find you unnecessarily hostile when I'm not instigating the issue, but trying to resolve it. You have the the tone of someone jaded by excessive dealing over this image issue, but, well... You catch more flies with honey.Phil Bond 16:53, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


 * You're right, I do believe I may have come off a bit rude; I apologize. I was not directing any argument at you, and certianly didn't mean that. I suppose I was in full rant mood today, and perhaps came off as oppressive and fasist, especially considering you are new here.


 * The only point I was attempting to validate is that various users inquired him to desist, reverted, and explained why his images were being removed and he continued. When you're given multiple warnings, you are to stop, period. I suppose this is why I came off cold; he wasn't listening to concensus, and this is becoming an increasingly bad habbit in wikipedia as of late. I know you are to trying to be reasonable, and I was merely explaining why his actions weren't tolerated. The truth is, I think his images are lovely, and I think they should stay, but not under violation of policy. I suppose in this circumstance, I violated WP:BITE in my approch to you (even though it was not intentional), and once again I apologize; I should be assisting you instead of conveying a sense of being cross. Please visit my talkpage if you would like to discuss more, I'd be quite estatic to make up for this misunderstanding. -ZeroTalk 18:14, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Homestar Runner Wikipedia
As seen here: http://www.hrwiki.org/index.php/Talk:disconnected#Re-Animator_Real-world_reference the Wiki page devoted to Homestar Runner appears to flagrantly contradict core rules of Wikipedia. Do we have a substantial enough relationship to this daughter Wiki that elders of the main Wiki can intervene? Their version of Wiki is one where all contributions must be voted on, and as far as I can see, that shuts out the contribution of little-known facts. What's more, they close the vote on old issues, making it impossible for new light to be shed on an old subject. I'm not sure how far I'm willing to pursue this issue with them, but as a recent convert to and promoter of the Wiki philosophy, I find this offshoot page downright offensive. Phil Bond 08:39, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia has no affiliation and this no control over other wikis. So there's no need to worry about whatever they are doing over there.--Commander Keane 08:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Need is a relative thing. I choose to worry about this other Wiki, and defend those who wish to post facts there. You've answered my question on relative authority, but what's your perspective on their stifling rules? Phil Bond 09:03, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * From your description they sound silly, but I'm not here to talk about other wikis - you might have more luck on a bulletin board somewhere for that.--Commander Keane 09:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I was essentially the person who really started the STUFF page (although it could well have been created anyway without me), although I can take no credit (or responsibility) for what has become of it since then. My opinion is that HRWiki is a completely different (though often overlapping) community, with its own needs and standards. For example, the average HRWiki user is younger than the average Wikipedian, although I couldn't say how much younger. And, well, kids have a greater tendency to add useless trivia to pages, and it was becoming a serious problem. So, we had to do something about it. In the end, we found that a centralized and standardized process worked better than a disorganized approach. In short, there's a good reason that STUFF is there, although I agree with you it's not perfect... but the world's not perfect. I don't think it's as contrary to the Wiki Way as it sounds... I'd consider it analogous to AfD on Wikipedia, just on a more granular level. Like it or not, that's the story :) - furrykef (Talk at me) 10:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been scurrying around reading pertinant things for a few hours now, and it's calmed me down considerably. Sorry to cause such a fuss. I'm about ready to sit back and let the thing take it's course, though I do think the STUFF policy page could use more detail. I still think the notion of voting on contributions is inherantly flawed, but I'm going to have a little faith and see how this pans out now that I've made a better case for the point of contention. I'm anticipating that I'll be embarassed at how much energy I expended over this whole thing. -Phil Bond 10:40, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Commons
Hello, im a french contributor of Wikipédia. What do you think about mooving image like Image:Robotic Operating Buddy.jpg on Wikimedia Commons ? Every body can do it for you, but i prefer you do it yourself to have a right history. Can you do it ? Thanks. fr:Utilisateur:Bayo 22:19, 6 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm happy to help, and to have my photos distributed freely, but I don't exactly know what the Wikimedia Commons is... So I hope you can wait a couple days for me to familiarize myself with the concept. Phil Bond 19:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wikimedia Commons exists to facilitate the use of image in all the MediaWiki project (french Wikipedia, english Wikipedia... WikiBooks, Wiktionary...). The use of a Commons image in your Wikipedia is the same as an image in Wikipedia. But all images on Commons must be free (commercial use...). Maybe, you can put your picture in this 2 categories : Commons:Category:Robots and Commons:Category:Gaming devices. fr:Utilisateur:Bayo 16:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh Boy
Damn you, Caleb. I was reading up on R.O.B. and watched the YouTube video, and I was all "holy shit! That's Caleb!" Your mastery of Wikipedia is far greater than mine. Points for you if you can correctly identify me. SlickDizzy 01:57, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

you are offically coolest old skool gamer i know......

Fair use rationale for Image:Stack_Up_ROB.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Stack_Up_ROB.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. 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. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

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 ensure 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 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 non-free media 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. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 09:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)