User talk:Roozbeh/Archive03

Protected Page

Hi. I was just fixing double redirects and came across the page South Azerbaijan which appears to have been protected by you. The protected version contains a double redirect. I was just curious why you permanently protected the page, you did not merge it with the redirect page, and didn't mention it anywhere in the edit summary or Wikipedia:Protected pages? Thanks. -- BMIComp (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmadinejad

Hello. Yes, it was intentional. I did it for the following reasons:

Mentioning both of them together in that context may imply equivocation of the two personalities and that one is equally innocent/guilty as the other.
"Target" implies that they are both innocent (which we obviously can't make a judgement about in the article due to NPOV).
There's already a link to the Hezbollah wiki, and interested parties could easily do further reasearch if they are unaware of what Hezbollah is and they are curious about the picture.

If clarification is necessary, maybe the sentence could be changed to something like: "Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by a number of foreign governments." What do you think? HKT ^talk 15:29, 4 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I believe some clarification is necessary, but don't care what kind of. Feel free to explain it using your own wording. roozbeh 15:35, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you continue to edit this article, when it is protected. This appears to be against policy. I think you should either stop editing it, or unprotect it. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:28, 14 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, it has been protected from vandalism, not because there was any dispute. So I assume I can edit it, specially since there were important new developments. Unprotected it anyway. roozbeh 08:57, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

what is wrong with you?

Why are you once again following me around and repalcing my tags with unwarranted tags on everything I upload? Im getting sick and tired of your vandalisms. What do you have against me? What have I done to you? what the hell is your problem??

here are 2 such examples:

I provided clear statement on when and how I took the photo. How do I have to prove to you that I was in the damn museum? WHY ARE YOU DELETING MY PICTURES??? I TOOK THE DAMN PICTURE!!!! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Wheel_Iran.jpg
The page linked at the bottom here clearly gives permission for usage: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iran_peoples.jpg

I am hereby reporting this string of violations to WP.--Zereshk 09:20, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have not done anything to me (you have cursed me a few times, but I don't take that seriously). You have been keeping posting copyrighted material to the Wikipedia without mentioning the exact source, and you have not paid enough attention to warnings. That's the problem. For some of that that I could find the sources, please see User:Roozbeh/List of copyright violations by Zereshk. For the case of those two photos, it seems that I made a mistake. I'm sorry. Please tell if you have taken the photo yourself on every such photo by saying "photographed by Zershk" in the image description, not only when you upload the photo. About the second photo, please provide the exact URL of the image on the University of Texas website, so it can be proven to everybody that the photo has indeed come from the the website.
I removed your Persian curses, also because the English translation you provided for them were not real translations, but watered down versions. I kept your English ones. roozbeh 11:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Roozbeh, you are upsetting Zereshk: When he is saying "Photo provided by Zereshk" I think he means that he has taken the photo himself and releases it unde GFDL. Therefore, your edits such as this one strike him as bad faith. dab (ᛏ) 09:52, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He has been violating copyright in a few proven cases, and by "providing" or "supplying", he usually means he has uploaded that to the Wikipedia, not something else. For example, please see Image:28mordad1332.jpg] where he is saying "Photo is from CHN Archives of Iran's Cultural Heritage Organization. Zereshk has supplied this photo to Wikipedia", or Image:Yar alone, where is saying "Picture provided by Zereshk from Yar Shater's own album, from his own website". Or on Image:Mirza teeghi.jpg he is saying "Photo provided by Zereshk" where the man photographed died in 1921.

BTW, he is also upsetting me by saying "are you sick?" in Persian. roozbeh 11:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

please pay attention when tagging images. It seems that here you overlooked the "Photo taken by Zereshk, using Sony 5.1 Mega Pixel camera." which is certainly good enough not to merit a "no source" tag. dab (ᛏ) 09:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, it seems that I missed that information, since it was only in the upload log and in the image description. roozbeh 11:36, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Dab, please note Roozbeh rarely if ever provides any source to back up his claim that the images are unfree. Because he cant. I took a lot of those shots. Some I didnt, but alot I did. And those which I didnt, I felt fully justified in doing so for legal reasons which Roozbeh has chosen to dispute via backdoor negotiations and lobbying. I dont have time to sit down and properly change tags for some 200 images. At best (as his proof), he provides a link to a website which has copied off WP material, or pics which I have been putting up on other websites (such as Iranian.com). It is amusing to see Roozbeh slapping copyvio tags based on his personal whims, opinions, and interpretations of the word "provided by Zereshk". If he challenges me on a picture, it is up to him to bring me documentation that the image is not free. From the photographer or creator. Not some flimsy web link that takes its stuff from WP or from some other website who has already copied it from 15 other sites. Unfortunately, Roozbeh even goes far as to making backdoor arrangements so as to have some files, specifically be "declared" copyright violations. Not to mention that he NEVER contributes to any article, but merely tries in various ways to reduce, disintegrate, and water down articles already there, written by others. If an editor comes out opposing him, well, he sets out on a crusade to erase, tarnish, and just be a royal pain in the ass to him in every possible way until the poor shmuck "considers not editing in Wikipedia anymore" to quote his own words to me. He knows Im right about the copyright situation from Iranian sources. Yet he goes around making backdoor arrangements just to piss me off. That's just sad and pathetic.--Zereshk 03:16, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that it is up to uploader to provide source information. If there is no source information, the image may be non-free. Please note that I have not your images "unfree", but only "possibly unfree". The won't be deleted unless niether you nor another contributor can confirm the source or the license.
If you claim you have photographed an object yourself in the photo description, that is usually enough for us. I made a mistake for one of your photos, but you have not explicitly claimed so for many of the possibly unfree images. You have only said "provided". For example, you have said "Photo provided by Zereshk" on this image. But [Mirza Kuchek Khan|the man photographed] has died in 1921. Were you born then? By "provided by Zereshk" don't you mean you have uploaded the photo to the Wikipedia?
I did not do backdoor negotiation and lobbying "just to piss you off". I sent an email to a Wikipedia mailing list inquiring about the material copyrighted in Iran, and also telling that if Wikipedia could use material copyrighted in Iran freely, we could use a lot of that in the Persian Wikipedia. Jimbo Wales answered [1] and told us that Wikipedia should respect the Iranian copyright law. How was it backdoor negotiation?
I understand that you do not have time to change tags for 200 images. But Wikipedia has a policy of deleting images whose source cannot be verified, to make sure we do not violate copyright. For those that proper source could not be found, the images may be deleted.
You are claiming that I never contribute to any article. That is not true. For an example of some articles I started, please see User:Roozbeh/Contributions.
Please note that I don't have anything against you. I am against copyrighted non-free material in Wikipedia. I have also tagged images from User:Amir85 and others as possibly unfree images. roozbeh 10:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

Zereshk, it is up to the uploader to provide source information. But I do think, Roozbeh, that you should be careful to negotiate in a friendly spirit with uploaders, and politely ask them to provide these sources, rather than upsetting them by brusquely changing tags or even deleting images. If no source is provided after polite requests, it will still be early enough to classify the image as unsourced. regards, dab (ᛏ) 07:44, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have already done so. I have talked in a friendly way with Zereshk (specially since I found that he has no bad intentions and that he doesn't know enough about Wikipedia's copyright policies and its definition of "free"). For some examples, please see [2] and [3] which were left unanswered on his talk page. I have not deleted his images. I have not changed tags to anything but "PUI" (where no license or source were given) or "PUIdisputed" (where there doubts about the license), which I, as a contributor, have a right to do. So in other words, I have asked politely, and I am still waiting for the sources or proofs that these are actually free images. For more details about Zereshk's possibly unfree images, please see Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. roozbeh 10:44, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

My input may be labeled as retaliatory, since I have repeatedly clashed with Zereshk, but I must observe that he has a history of copyvios for print as well as for pictures. I particularly recall the article on Shush Castle, which he defended with the Iranian-copyrights-don't-count quibble, and which I eventually rewrote in "unvioed" form to end the argument. I do think he's sincere in wanting to contribute, and just doesn't see what all the fuss is about -- if it's up on the web, of course it's cut-and-pasteable. Zora 11:23, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Um, I should perhaps add, just to be fair, that uploading pictures and adding licence information may be unnecessarily complex, and that if Zereshk is not properly crediting his own "taken with my own camera" pictures, he could to some extent be excused on the grounds of confusion. I think I've messed up on some images I've uploaded by just adding the info at the upload step and not going back to edit the licence information. I don't think I've added anything illegal -- everything I've uploaded is either a reproduction of a pre-1923 2-D original OR my original work -- but you might not be able to tell that without looking at my upload files. Perhaps we could use this problem as an incentive to change the image upload process to put the copyright issues front and c

I see, Roozbeh, your behaviour seems to be impeccable. But I also think that Zerehk edits in good faith, and is genuinely confused. Since he believes you are after him, maliciously, it would be best to make extra sure he is informed exactly about the reasons why things happens to 'his' images. But of course if he just cannot follow the reasons, even if they are explained to him, you are not to blame. regards, dab (ᛏ) 14:35, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Babel

What's that changing Tahoma to Roya in Wikipedia:Babel Fa-Template all about? Downtownee ♣ 14:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because Tahoma, while containing glyphs for Persian, is not a font aesthetically pleasant to Persian readers. Roya is a publicly available font to Persian readers, and is considered to follow Persian aesthetics. roozbeh 11:15, August 27, 2005 (UTC)