User talk:Terence7/Archive 5

San Jose Hospital & Trauma Center
I removed your speedy tag. Hospitals and medical centers, especially large ones in large countries, are almost always notable. If you still dispute this, go to WP:AfD. Bearian (talk) 20:55, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Sure, I figured I'd give speedy deletion a shot &mdash; I don't think there's any way this would survive AfD (at least it shouldn't). I'll nominate it now. Terence7 (talk) 21:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/The Boy Who Grew Flowers (2nd nomination)
I felt that a rough consensus existed to keep the article because the sources found and explicated by Tokyogirl79 effectively refuted the arguments to delete. I understand that you are not convinced they are enough, but they certainly are much more than the four mentions in local media cited by the nominator. Also my experience has been that books with multiple reviews, even if they are short reviews in Publishers Weekly, are regularly kept. In light of that background consensus, I felt that "Keep" was a better summary of the outcome than "No Consensus". I also took note of the prior AfD. Given the amount of time, it wasn't very significant, but it failed to raise any additional arguments for deletion or show that the ones raised here had been convincing to a prior audience. Eluchil404 (talk) 23:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Kofi Annan
However you don't own this arcticle do you? It's people like you who are just single minded and self righteous. And you're saying that my material is "largely self-promotional and therefore inappropriate." I do take great offence to this i'm afriad. It wasn't self-promotional at all, the Adam Smith lecture is very significant in Scotland and has had a big list of important key figures as their speekers including the likes of Dr Alan Greenspan, Mervyn King, Professor Jack Straw and of course Kofi Annan. I genuinely felt that this was a significant lecture that Kofi Annan delivered and an significant piece of information, hence why i placed that there. Just because you felt that it was "not a big deal" does not mean that it is, it is simply only a matter of opinion. So since we live in a world of free speech and all, in theory i am entitled to post that one small harmless paragraph about Kofi Annan and the Adam Smith lecture. It's not spam, it's not "self-promotional" It certainly is not "inappropriate" It is evidential and myself and many others feel that it should be included in "his own" arcticle. The fact that you feel that you have to delete a little piece of harmless and positive information about Kofi is just pathetic, its just a small paragraph mentioning his important lecture he delivered. Also do you even know who Adam Smith is? One of Scotland's greatest sons, A philosopher and a pioneer in politicial economy and an important figure of the Scottish Enlightenment as well as the author of The Wealth of Nations. Terence you should just let it go and let me or anyone for that matter who assures people like you that we wouldn't spam and only input positive information. It wasn't a pleasure messaging to you about this but however i backed up my case. I'll somehow contact a "proper professional" user for Wikipedia and see what they say about it all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rovergooner (talk • contribs) 16:47, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Tank Man‎
Two issues: I honestly don't see there's any mentioning or reference of the claims in the article. If you insist to recover those claims, you're obligated to provide neutral reliable source. However, even if you can provide a source to support that claim, the claim itself deserves no place in the top image which does not deliver the exact message of the claim. Literally that claim is giving wp:undue weight to one side POV. You may move the claim to somewhere else, but not in the image caption. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 05:05, 4 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added multiple sources supporting the fact that the several versions of this photograph are widely considered among the most famous and iconic images of the 20th century. Surely you don't actually disagree with this. Get on LexisNexis and you'll see that there are plenty more sources saying the same thing.
 * Maybe this is a language problem, but I can't tell exactly what you're arguing about WP:NPOV and WP:UNDUE. Are you suggesting that there is some non-trivial dispute about the iconic status of the photograph? Terence7 (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg
Whether the said file can be used in Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 is largely arguable. The tank man image is only part of the event which is clearly stated in the guideline that non-free image cannot be used to illustrate a passage if that passage already has its own article. As Wikimedia requires us to comply the copyright law as strictly as possible, you shouldn't extend the usage of non-free image without consensus. Media copyright questions would be a suitable place to request for comment. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * As I stated, you are misunderstanding the non-free content use policy. The "unacceptable uses" section of the policy, which is what you are focusing on, states at the top that "The following is a non-inclusive list of examples where non-free content may not be used outside of the noted exceptions."
 * So what are the exceptions? Well, if you'd scroll up to the "Acceptable Use" section, under Images, you'd see item #8:
 * "Images with iconic status or historical importance: Iconic or historical images that are themselves the subject of sourced commentary in the article are generally appropriate. Iconic and historical images which are not subject of commentary themselves but significantly aid in illustrating historical events may be used judiciously, but they must meet all aspects of the non-free content criteria, particularly no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, and contextual significance."
 * The Tank Man image is a paradigmatic example of an image with "iconic status or historical importance" and it does "significantly aid in illustrating historical events." The other criteria (no free alternatives, respect for commercial opportunity, contextual significance) are certainly met here. If you seriously dispute this, please take it to the talk page on File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg or the Tiananmen protest article rather than my talk page. Terence7 (talk) 16:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * If you read the other points under "unacceptable use" carefully, these are not "exception" but "prohibition". It is you who misinterpreted the policy. "Noted exceptions" means the note that written after the prohibition if provided. I'm asking for protection of the article due to your persistence to abuse copyright-protected non-free material. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 16:58, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The image quite clearly falls under one of the "Acceptable Uses" as I explained above. I encourage you to get others involved; I really don't think your English is good enough to be engaging in this kind of legalistic dispute, as I have quite frequently found it difficult to understand what you are arguing in the numerous times you have posted on this page. Terence7 (talk) 17:13, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's time to take this issue to WP:Media copyright questions. Homunculus (duihua) 17:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The image has already met TWO unacceptable use guildelines #6 and #7. We should remove the image first and request for comment before putting it back into the 1989 article. You should not gamble that the usage meets the acceptable exception under our strict copyright policy. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:19, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The image has already met the ACCEPTABLE use guideline. We need to leave things as they have been for years now, and if you want to dispute it, let's take it to higher authorities. Your judgment is hardly impeccable on this, as you were originally arguing that we couldn't even use the Tank Man image in the Tank Man article! Terence7 (talk) 17:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Unacceptable use overrides acceptable use. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The photo is now safe and firm in Tank Man article. Ain't you thankful? -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:28, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Big words from the Chinese guy with obvious political motivations who has been trying to whitewash these articles for years now. Terence7 (talk) 17:33, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm literally neutral on either side. I just can't stand that someone violates the Wikimedia policy to fulfill their political goal. -- Sameboat - 同舟 (talk) 17:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's telling that you assume I'm political for trying to keep a historic image in an article about that topic. Terence7 (talk) 17:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
Your recent editing history at Tiananmen Square protests of 1989 shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Your recent editing history at File:Tank Man (Tiananmen Square protester).jpg shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 19:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've already taken this dispute to a discussion page! It's the other person who is attempting to remove content without consensus. See Media_copyright_questions. Did you pay any attention to what is happening, or did you just reflexively post this message? Terence7 (talk) 20:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am indeed paying attention; you have 3 reverts. Choyoołʼįįhí:Seb az86556 > haneʼ 20:48, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * And I had already taken the dispute to a discussion page, as I said in the last revert. And, I reiterate, it is the other side who is acting without consensus. The image has literally been in the article for years. I'm a well-established editor here, I'm well aware of the three-revert rule (that's why I haven't violated it), and it's grating to be bombarded with these impersonal, ill-fitting template messages. Terence7 (talk) 20:53, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I should also point out that you are PART OF the "edit warring," which makes you particularly ill-suited to be the person posting such messages on my page. Terence7 (talk) 20:55, 8 August 2012 (UTC)