User talk:ArmanJan/Archive 1

We need your help brother! Iranian articles are being attacked.

Please see Wikipedia:Iranian Wikipedians' notice board, read it carefully, especially about the Anti-Iranian wikipedians.

Then please cast your vote on: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-03-02 Persian people and Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Aucaman.

If you need any info/help, please contact me.

Thanks for cleaning up the table. Did not have time to finish it. I'm on the search now for the 2005-2006 Military Balance. We need to get up-to-date numbers.

ArmanJan, threats are a poor substitute for reasoned arguments. Why do you object to the photo link? I believe it is relevant; it adds to the resources immediately available to the reader of "Military of Iran," which is hardly detailed enough. And, as long as I'm asking, why did you add the Eagle Claw link? PRRfan 00:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is relevant, however it is not relevant to add these pictures on the main site of the Iran military. The link to these pictures is already on the operation page. If extra links and pictures of everything is added the page would look very different. If people are interested about the operation, they will go to that link and check the pictures, but not on Iran's military page. User:ArmanJan

Yes, you keep saying that. But a) the page is not very long, so any more information would seem to be useful at this point; and b) you yourself have included a link (Operation Eagle Claw) with less apparent relevance than photos of an action that actually involved the Iranian military. Why do you think that the Military of Iran page needs less information than presently presented? PRRfan 17:01, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you go back in the history of that page you will see that the page was very long, with a lot of information. However, it was then divided in many pages, and the Iranian military page links to them all. This is how we would like to keep it (those who attend to the iranian military pages). I added Operation Eagle Claw because I see it as just as irrelevant as the other operations. Someone feld it was needed to also add the small battles, so here you go. User:ArmanJan

Well, if the battle has already been fought to slim the page down, then I won't try to bulk it back up. (Not sure about your reasoning on the last point, tho.) Cheers. PRRfan 21:13, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Salam ArmanJan ! I've just been uploading the pictures of iranian army insigna on the french WP, and there's an admin asking me where do the pictures come from. Can you tell me where you uploaded them so I can clear the problem raised about the license of those insignas ? Motshakkeram, Fabienkhan 14:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dastet dard nakone ! Merci. Fabienkhan 08:17, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

EUFOR - read it and weep. -- MichaelJBuck 15:43, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have produced a new version of the page, that I believe is fair and balanced, I have also outlined what I thought was wrong with the version you reverted to. Please read through the new version, and explain the problems you have with it before reverting. Cheers. Megapixie 01:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've tried to narrow down the dispute to a few key areas. Could you review the list at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Iranian_military_industry#List_of_disputed_points and confirm that it has all the disputed points. Once that is agreed by all parties we can tackle the list point by point. Megapixie 06:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly we will not reach a consensus on the wording of the infobox. I have taken the issue to the talk page, I suggest that we discuss it there rather than continue this revert war. Both of us are on the verge of violating WP:3RR GabrielF 23:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Zulfiqar1.jpg. I notice the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this file yourself, then there needs to be an argument why we have the right to use it on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you did not create the file yourself, then you need to specify where it was found, i.e., in most cases link to the website where it was taken from, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the file also doesn't have a copyright tag, then one should be added. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may 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. Nv8200p talk 19:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Nasrollah.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for posting this image, it's a big improvement over the previous one! --Karldoh 06:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArmanJan. It may very well be that it's okay to use the picture of Nasrallah, but if so you must provide better information than you have done. The fact that you know the owner of the site and that he has said that it's okay to use the picture, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. You claim that it is a promotional picture. If so, you must, according to the Wikipedia rules, show why you think so: who owns the copyright, for what purpose was it originally published, and why you think it can be tagged as promotional. In this case, "promotional" basically means that it must have been sent out to the press by Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah owns the copyright. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hid it because the article is no longer sprotected, so the tag you unhidden is inaccurate. El_C 00:23, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, ArmanJan. I'm sorry I had to remove your latest picture addition to Wikipedia's currently most important page. Just like you, most of us would desperately like to see other illustrations than those put out by IDF, but unfortunately it's very hard to find pictures from the Lebanese side that can be used without violating copyright. I wish at least one Wikipedian in Beirut could venture out with his/her camera and take a picture that we could use without any problem, but until then we must stick to the rules. Taking pictures that are owned by news agencies like AP is an absolute no/no. Sorry. Thomas Blomberg 15:26, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you tag it as "unfree"? Not only had I already added the source, but I also know the owner of that site. You obviously had other reasons for doing that. Anyway, you may contact the owner at: [1] if you wish. I'll remove the tag. ArmanJan 14:25, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ArmanJan. It may very well be that it's okay to use the picture of Nasrallah, but if so you must provide better information than you have done. The fact that you know the owner of the site and that he has said that it's okay to use the picture, doesn't necessarily mean that it is true. You claim that it is a promotional picture. If so, you must, according to the Wikipedia rules, show why you think so: who owns the copyright, for what purpose was it originally published, and why you think it can be tagged as promotional. In this case, "promotional" basically means that it must have been sent out to the press by Hezbollah, and that Hezbollah owns the copyright. Best regards Thomas Blomberg 14:37, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what "promotional" means. That site also makes pictures and they distribute these pictures for the purpose of advertising (Iran, religious figures, etc..). That is why I used "promotional". ArmanJan 14:44, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Promotional" would only apply if the site is 1) an official Shia site (i.e. run by a recognised Shia organisation), and 2) the site owns the copyright (i.e. the site owner of one of its staff has taken the picture, or the site owner has bought (or been given) the copyright from the photographer. If the owner, who you say you know, owns the copyright, the easiest thing is to get an okay from him and publish that okay together with a more appropriate tag, such as a Creative Commons {{cc-by-sa-2.5}} tag. I hope you can sort it out, because it is a good picture and I would like to see it stay, but Wikipedia has very strict rules regarding copyright. Thomas Blomberg 15:04, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't change the lead picture on the 2006 Israel-Lebanon conflict article. You've added the wrong tag (there is no product in question) so the image is, as far as I can tell, violating copyright. I see you've been warned about adding images from news sources already. Check out the image use policy. --Iorek85 09:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The dicussion on my page is about another picture, the picture you refer to is free in use. Thank you for your concern. ArmanJan 09:34, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm aware it's a different image; you'll note I said images from news sources, not this particular picture. And no, it isn't free in use, as you claim, or at least if it is, you haven't tagged it as such. You've used a tag that says it's fair use, which is a different thing. However, the tag you've used (if you'll read it) says, and I quote, This is a copyrighted image that has been released by a company or organization to promote their work or product in the media, such as advertising material or a promotional photo in a press kit. This tag does not apply to photos taken by newsmedia. Therefore, unless you have evidence of it being 'free use', then the image should not be in the article. Believe it or not, I'm as unhappy as you - I'd much rather use the Beirut photo, it is much better than the tank. But the tank is allowed, your photo is not. --Iorek85 10:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed it, I meant Fair use, sorry. I know this source is allowed since I have uploaded images from this source for the past year now. ArmanJan 10:12, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems O.K with the new tag, but you might want to add the Israel article specifically to it, and add the comment you made to me (that they don't mind us using images) to the article description. Nice that we can use the Beirut photo now. Thanks --Iorek85 10:15, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah sh... I thought I FINALLY found two copyright-free picture.. but NOOOO :( :p --Deenoe 19:59, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Please help prove that fair use is allowed for that image, so that we would be able to use it. Thanks. El_C 20:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would it be in violation today when I have used images from this same source without a problem ever since I became member of wikipedia? [2] ArmanJan 21:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The question isn't whether you've used it before, but whether it is allowed. I would like to see it used, but you are leaving me with no choice. If you could specify something (anything) about fairuse permission of that site or the source of the photograph, that would be great. El_C 21:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just did, the site is in another language, what do you want me to do? Its English page doesnt say anything. [3] ArmanJan 21:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can translate its pertinent contents. El_C 21:41, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Translating legal text (or whatever its called) is not easy. However it says that all materials on that site is protected by copyright law but there is an exemption for fair use of the copyrighted works. A mention should be given that is from them (Fars News Agency). ArmanJan 22:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur that there is a fair use clause, and I have subsequently removed the copyvio tag and reinserted it back into the article. Thanks for your time. El_C 00:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Immediately Tweekerd 10:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about - No blatant lying on encyclopedia pages??? You go and vandalise the article with bold lies and arab propoganda, while there is more than enough proof that the Israeli border patrol was attacked inside Israel while on ordinary border patrol. I don't mean no perosnal attacks, but anyone vandalising the article with such bulls**t is gotta hear it immediately. Tweekerd 10:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how I continue to attack you personally, but whatever you say mate, as long as you stick to the truth. Tweekerd 11:16, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a very tough time understanding why you choose to ignore the truth, and rather spread Anti-Israeli propoganda. If that's your purpose, just open a blog. This is an encyclopedia. It has been reported by all the major news agencies, inluding Reuters and Associated press, as well as documented by footage (which I don't have here to show you but I'm sure you have seen it or can find it somewhere), that the Israeli border patrol was attacked on Israeli soil while patrolling the border. There were two Humvees, one with 4 soldiers and one with 3 soldiers. Both where attacked at 9:05 AM, and their last radio to base was: "This is border patrol 5 (I think that was their number), we have been attacked." Upon reaching the site of the attack, the rescue force found two burnt Humvees, Three dead bodies, another seriously injured, one physically unharmed but shocked soldier, and two soldiers were missing. This is the truth, and it is clearly obvious that whoever reports otherwise (which so far have been, what, two lebanese policeman who are obviously anti-Israeli???) is a liar. I'm an Israeli reservist, and if my officer told me to infiltrate Lebanese territory on my last day of service, hours before I can go home to my family and friends, I would have refused his order and gone to prison, as would have any other Israeli soldier. Such an order is an order considered in the Israeli army an "Clearly Illegal order", and has no chance of being given by anyone. Your persistence in posting these lies only hurts this article and the truth. Seriously, if you wanna post what you think, go open a blog. Tweekerd 11:34, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good that we have a map of the sites involved. If you have the time, I think it would be even better if it was also marked out the site where the soldiers were captured according to Israel (Zarit, i think) , and also the scale of the map.--Battra 11:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've laid out reasons on the article's talk page, I've brought citations. I've made an edit which still has the very flimsy claim in it, despite the fact that I think it has no place in wikipedia (not because it is false, but because it is poorly sourced and cited). The claim is false, and presenting it as a competitor to Israeli claims is not NPOV -- it is an extraordinary claim given the amount of citation to the contrary, and I urge you to read Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Exceptional_claims_require_exceptional_evidence, which explicitly lays out WP's approach to such claims. In the meantime, it is sheer POV and bias to include a graphic displaying a big "soldiers captured here" when there is so little to support the claim. The image itself, alone, is POV because it has red lettering laying out what is not even cited as hezbollah's position on the matter, while giving zero display to the claims of pretty much the rest of the world. Although it personally makes me feel like taking a shower, I am talking to you and trying to resolve this in the Wikipedia Way. Stop making reasonless reverts, go to the talk page where I have laid out a course of action, and participate instead of bias editing. If nothing else, it should make you feel ill that you are helping to promote this lie. Like I said, I have firsthand knowledge of the issue, and although that gets me nowhere in wikipedia, I hope that a personal appeal will somehow light a spark in your conscience. Idangazit 19:44, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Boragh.jpg. The image description 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.

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.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 17:06, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]